The
televised
presidential debates are the mega-events of the fall campaign; stakes
are
high as the candidates face each other, across a single stage, within a
month of the election, before a television audience of tens of millions
of people. A debate can reveal the candidates' differences and
ability
to think on their feet or it can devolve into a scripted exercise
bordering
on a joint press conference or into an exchange of soundbites.
When
it comes to the number, timing and formats of the debates, as well as
who
will participate, the major party candidates and their campaigns have
the
final word. Each campaign acts in its own best interest; it wants
to create the most favorable possible set of circumstances for its
candidate.

The Commission on
Presidential
Debates (CPD), a non-profit organization established in 1987, organized
the 1988, 1992 and 1996 debates. Previous debates were sponsored by the
League of Women Voters (1976, 1980, and 1984) and the networks (1960).
The CPD develops candidate selection criteria which are used to
evaluate
which candidates it will invite to participate. It proposes dates
and locations of debates. It lines up corporate sponsors and
oversees
preparations for these important events.

On January 6,
2000 the CPD
announced its candidate selection criteria and proposed dates and
locations
for three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate.
After the national conventions in August, the Gore and Bush campaigns
engaged
in ritualistic haggling before agreeing to the CPD schedule on
September
14, 2000. Three presidential and one vice presidential debate
occurred
in the 14-day period between October 3 and October 17, 2000. (The
earliest date a presidential debate has been held was Sept. 21 in 1980
and the latest was on Oct. 28, also in 1980).

Controversy over Candidate
Selection
Criteria

Clearly some
limits must
be set as to who will appear on the debate stage, for with too many
candidates
these events will become unmanageable. In past cycles, the CPD
used
a complicated set of "objective criteria" that drew much criticism.1
The commission's criteria announced on Jan. 6, 2000 are considerably
streamlined
but are still open to criticism. To participate in the debates,
candidates
must:

(a) be
constitutionally
eligible;(b) have ballot
access in
enough states to win a majority of electoral votes (at least 270);
and (c) have a level
of national
support of at least 15 % as measured in polls done by five selected
national
polling organizations.

Third party
candidates have
raised strong objections to the 15 % threshhold, arguing that it is
arbitrary
and too high. They point out that the CPD, headed by the former
chairs
of the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National
Committee,
is a bipartisan rather than a nonpartisan organization, and can
scarcely
be expected to be fair to third party and independent candidates.
Pat Buchanan, Dr. Lenora Fulani's Committee for a Unified Independent
Party,
and Ralph Nader have all filed lawsuits seeking to
gain
entry into the debates.

Buchanan, for
example, points
out that in the recent Mexican presidential election, the debates
involved
six candidates and the Mexican people were able to handle it. He
also notes that the polls to be used by the CPD have different sample
sizes,
ask different questions, and have significant margins of error so that
it does not make sense to average them. Further, Buchanan states,
the appropriate question is not "Who do you want to see as president of
the United States?" but "Who do you want to see in the debates?"

Negotiations

Every four years
there is
a ritual debate over debates For several weeks the two
major
campaigns jockey back and forth haggling over details big and
small--everything
from the number and format of the debates to the podium height and
shape
and who is or is not acceptable as a moderator. Closed-doors
meetings
alternate with pointed public pronouncements, but eventually the two
sides
reach an accord. There is no requirement that presidential
candidates
participate in debates, but it would be quite damaging to be seen as
blocking
the debates, particularly since the candidates are taking federal funds.

The year 2000 was
no different.
With the conventions over, the major party campaigns turned their focus
to the debates. The debate over debates began
on
September 3 when Gov. Bush put a proposal on the table that entailed a
total of five debates: a debate on a special edition of "Meet the
Press"
moderated by Tim Russert (Sept. 12), a debate on "Larry King Live"
(Oct.
3), two vice presidential debates and a CPD sponsored debate at
Washington
University in St. Louis (Oct. 17). The Bush proposal did not fly,
however, and Bush was portrayed as trying to duck debates.
Finally
on September 14 the two sides met and agreed to the CPD schedule;
negotiations
on format continued through September 16. The contract, at 31
pages
including the signature page, had 16 sections and covered everything
from
camera angles and room temperature to format.

Each campaign had
a high-powered
team to handle debate negotiations. Negotiating for Bush-Cheney
were
campaign manager Joe Allbaugh and Andy Card, who chaired the Republican
National Convention; the Gore-Lieberman team consisted of campaign
chairman
William Daley, former Fannie Mae chairman and CEO Jim Johnson, and
Secretary
of Labor Alexis Herman.

Format

The format of a
debate has
a critical impact on nature of the exchanges that occur and on the
amount
of information viewers are able to learn. The most obvious parameter to
consider is who is on the stage and who is not, but there are many
other
factors. Is there a live audience and are they controlled or
disruptive?
Is the subject matter confined to one area, such as the economy, or is
it more wide-ranging? What is the time limit on candidate responses and
on rebuttals? Finally, who asks the questions? The 1960 and 1976-1988
presidential
debates exclusively used the panel of reporters. More recently the
single
moderator and town hall formats have come into favor. The town hall
format
was first used in the Richmond, VA debate in 1992. Having an audience
of
undecided voters pose the questions likely results in a broader range
of
questions, but on the downside this format does not foster
follow-up.
One format which has not been attempted is to have the candidates
question
each other directly.

Prep

In the lead up to
the debates,
the candidates undergo intensive preparations. Briefing books are put
together,
and the candidates engage in mock debates. The media provide glimpses
of
these rehearsals. The candidates will also be sure to be seen engaging
in public displays of confidence such as throwing a baseball, jogging,
or giving a thumbs up.

Spin

Following each
debate occurs
one of the most unique and fascinating scenes in American politics. Top
campaign staff, campaign surrogates and party leaders gather in the
media
filing center and spin reporters, telling them what they have just
seen.
On opposite sides of the filing center chairs are set up for Democratic
and for Republican partisans to do satellite interviews with local
stations
around the country. Meanwhile, a rapid response unit has been working
feverishly
to produce rebuttals to various claims made during the debate; these
documents
are distributed and faxed out.Boston
Spin

Media

In 1988 media
were criticized
for giving too much attention to the spinners. Spin soundbites
still
form an integral part of coverage, but another common element is to
assemble
a group of undecided voters and interview them for their
reactions.
In 1996 and again in 2000 the Commission on Presidential Debates' Debate
Watch program organized debate-watching groups around the country,
providing convenient opportunities for local media to do this type of
coverage.

Third Party Debates

Voters who want
to see third
party presidential candidates in debates have thus far had to rely on
C-SPAN.
In 2000, two third party presidential debates and one vice-presidential
debate occurred involving the Libertarian, Constitution and Natural Law
Party candidates; Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader declined to
participate.
These forums received virtually no coverage other than that provided by
C-SPAN.

Sept. 14 Representatives of the Bush and
Gore campaigns
meet and agree to the schedule proposed by the Commission on
Presidential
Debates.

Sept. 13 -Not in the script!- Reports surface
that Gore
advisor Tom Downey received a package containing a stolen video of Bush
prepping for the debate and documents. Downey turned the
materials
over to the FBI. Maverick Media employee Yvette Lozano was
indicted
in the case in March 2001 and pleaded guilty to mail fraud and perjury
on June 14, 2001.

Efforts to Open the Debates
Through
Changes in Regulations / the Courts3

Third
party candidates went to the FEC and the courts in an effort to gain
entry
into the debates. They used several lines of attack. For example,
FECA states that "[i]t is unlawful...for any corporation whatever...to
make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election" for
the office of President, Vice-President, Senator or Member of Congress."[2
U.S.C sec. 441b(a)] The
CPD-sponsored debates involve corporate contributions. FECA does
allow an exemption for "nonpartisan activity designed to encourage
individuals
to vote or to register to vote."[2 U.S.C
sec.
431(9)(B)(ii)] However, the CPD is
a
bipartisan rather than a nonpartisan entity. Thus, one major
thrust
of current lawsuits on the presidential debates is to charge that the
FEC's
debate regulations[C.F.R. secs. 110.13 and
114.4(f)]are illegal (in excess of the
statutory
authority granted the FEC under the Federal Election Campaign
Act).
Note that two of the cases actually began as administrative complaints
filed with the FEC.

Lawsuit filed by the Natural Law
Party
and Dr. John Hagelin against the FEC This suit
began on
April 24, 2000 as an administrative complaint filed with the FEC
(designated
MUR 5004); the FEC dismissed the complaint in July 2000. The
Natural
Law Party et el. filed the suit on Sept. 6, 2000 in the U.S. District
Court
of the District of Columbia, where it was assigned to Judge Ellen Segal
Huvelle. On Nov. 21, 2000 the two sides agreed to dismiss the
case.Full
Text of Lawsuit

Lawsuit filed by the Nader
2000 Campaign
et al. against the FEC Becker
v. FEC - filed June 19, 2000 in the U.S. District Court of the
District
of Massachusetts; oral arguments heard Aug. 2000 in Boston by U.S.
District
Court Judge Patti B. Saris; on Sept. 1, 2000 the court ruled Nader and
the plaintiffs had standing but denied their request for a preliminary
injunction. Nader's lawyers filed a notice of appeal on Sept. 15,
2000, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted the
motion
on Sept. 26, 2000. An expedited hearing occurred before a
three-judge
panel on Oct. 5, 2000; the court dismissed Nader's appeal on Nov. 1,
2000.
On Jan. 31, 2001 Nader filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with
the
U.S. Supreme Court; the court declined to take up the case on
April
30, 2001.Fact
Sheet | Full
Text of Lawsuit | Full
Text of Court of Appeals' Decision (Nov. 1, 2000)

Lawsuit filed by Committee for
a Unified
Independent Party et al. against the FEC Filed May 2000
in
the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York; amended
June
21, 2000. The judge in the case was Barbara S. Jones. CUIP
submitted papers and request for oral argument on Aug. 15, 2000;
Magistrate
Judge James C. Francis, IV heard oral argument on Oct. 24, 2000 and
issued
a report and recommendation on Dec. 11, 2000. Overview
| Full Text
of
Lawsuit | Full
Text of Francis' Report and Recommendation (Dec. 11, 2000) (PDF)

Lawsuit filed by Buchanan
Reform and
the Reform Party against the FEC This suit
began on
March 20, 2000 as an administrative complaint filed with the FEC by
Buchanan
Reform and the Reform Party against the CPD (designated MUR
4987).
When the FEC refused to act on the complaint, the Buchanan campaign
took
the matter to court; the suit was filed July 25, 2000 in the U.S.
District
Court of the District of Columbia. A hearing occurred on Sept. 6,
2000 before Judge Richard W. Roberts; on Sept. 15, 2000 the judge ruled
that he would not instruct the FEC to include Buchanan in the
debates.
The campaign quickly appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit, seeking expedited consideration on the point that Buchanan, as
a federally funded candidate, had a right to be in the debates.
The
action came to an end on Nov. 30, 2000, when Buchanan et al. moved to
dismiss
the appeal.Summary
| Full
Complaint | Full
Text of Judge Roberts Decision (Sept. 15, 2000) (PDF)

Petition for Rulemaking on
Presidential
Debates(May 1999) Mary Clare
Wohlford,
William T. Wohlford and Martin T. Mortimer petitioned the Federal
Election
Commission to amend its rules so that the FEC, not a debate staging
organization,
determines the "objective criteria" for inclusion in debates:
Petition.[The
FEC took public comment from June 10 to July 26, 1999 and received
approximately
1,300 comments that filled four 2" binders. However, on Feb. 17,
2000, the FEC voted to "hold the Petition for Rulemaking in abeyance
until
after the 2000 general election."]

Legislative Proposals on
Presidential
Debates106th CongressH.R.
2461 (Traficant)Seeks
to
force debate staging organizations to include candidates who qualify
for
the ballot in states with at least 270 electoral votes, using the tax
code.
[identical to H.R. 4310, the bill Traficant introduced in the 105th].H.R.
2027 (Paul)Seeks to
broaden
debates so they would include candidates who qualify for the ballot in
at least 40 states, using campaign financing as a lever. [identical to
H.R. 2478, the bill Paul introduced in the 105th].H.R.
178 (McCollum)Would
establish a three-member Presidential Debate Commission, members
appointed
by the President.alsoH.Con.Res.
373 (Jackson)Would
establish
as the sense of Congress that presidential candidates should be allowed
to participate in debates if they achieve support of 5 percent of
eligible
voters in national polls or if the majority of those polled support a
candidate's
participation in the debates.

105th CongressH.R.
4310 (Traficant)
Sought
to force debate staging organizations to include candidates who qualify
for the ballot in states with at least 270 electoral votes, using the
tax
code.H.R.
2478 (Paul)Sought to
broaden
debates so they would include candidates who qualify for the ballot in
at least 40 states, using campaign financing as a lever.

1. The 15 %
threshhold replaces
the old CPD criteria which stated that a candidate "must have a
realistic
(i.e. more than theoretical) chance of being elected the next President
of the United States." The commission had a set of "objective"
criteria
that it used to determine whether a candidate met this realistic
chance
standard. Critics challenged the standard and the commission's
objectivity.

In 1996 the CPD
determined
that Ross Perot and other third party candidates did not meet the
realistic
chance standard. Perot filed suit charging that, "The decision-making
of
the CPD is not independent, but is heavily influenced, if not totally
dictated
by the political interests and calculations of major party candidates
and
major party national committees." The suit charged the CPD
"automatically
certified the Democratic and Republican nominees and then forced all
others
to run a gauntlet of subjective and arbitrary criteria."

The realistic
chance standard
raised fundamental questions about our democracy, prompting efforts to
adjust the candidate selection criteria through legislation, through
rulemaking,
and in the courts. For example, bills have been introduced in Congress
that would require general election candidates receiving federal
payments
to participate in debates. (If this standard had been used in
1996,
the debates would have had Clinton, Dole and Perot).

2. Harvard
Professor Richard
Neustadt, who chaired the CPD's advisory committee through the 1996
campaign,
has noted that the commission is "still a weak organism" and has not
reached
a state where it can dictate to the candidates. Thus commission puts
its
proposal on the table and the Democratic and Republican presidential
campaigns
then do what they want to. At one point, assessing the 1996
experience,
CPD co-chair Frank Fahrenkopf suggested that in 2000, with no incumbent
running, the commission may have an opportunity to be more forceful. In
2000, Fahrenkopf said, the commission will issue a set of dates and
a draft agreement or contract. "We're going to force it down their
throats,"
Fahrenkopf said.

3. Another
debates-related
lawsuit resulted from the heavy-handed exclusion of Ralph Nader from
the
UMass campus during the first presidential debate on Oct. 3,
2000.
On Oct. 17, 2000 Ralph Nader filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
in Boston charging that the Commission on Presidential Debates and
other
parties had unlawfully kept him off the UMass campus. Nader had a
ticket for an auxilliary event in Science Auditorium and a scheduled
interview
with Fox News. Nader's counsel, Boston attorney Howard Friedman,
said the authorities had excluded the Green Party candidate "because of
who he was," thereby violating his First Amendment and Equal Protection
rights under the U.S. Constitution. On Feb. 8, 2001 Judge William
G. Young denied the commission's motion to dismiss, and the case is
expected
to go to trial in early 2002.